This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 OTTAWA 001364 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR IO/T (BLACKWOOD), WHA/CAN (RUNNING) 
 
HHS FOR OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, OFFICE OF 
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS (STEIGER) 
 
GENEVA FOR HOHMAN 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: AORC PREL CA WHO
SUBJECT: Framework Convention on Tobacco Control 
(FCTC): Canadians Suggest We Reexamine Our Stance 
 
Ref. (A) OTTAWA 1304 
     (B) SECSTATE 106632 
 
¶1. This cable contains an action request, see paragraph 
¶11. 
 
¶2. As a follow-up to the official GoC response to our 
request for support on removing the Reservations Clause 
(Article 30) of the FCTC (Ref A), Canada's Department 
of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) has 
provided Embassy a detailed response to USG concerns 
raised in reftel B. 
 
¶3. The DFAIT document claims that the GoC has examined 
carefully USG concerns, and in particular the areas in 
which the USG had indicated it might take reservations 
(Ref B).  It offers the GoC assessment of three areas 
in particular: Advertising, Promotions and Sponsorship; 
Warning Labels and; Distribution of Free Samples. 
 
-------------------------------------- 
Advertising, Promotion and Sponsorship 
-------------------------------------- 
 
¶4. Our DFAIT interlocutors note that initially, this 
was an area that posed challenges for Canada as well, 
given their own constitutional requirements.  The GoC, 
the documents states, "worked diligently to negotiate 
wording that allowed for a constitutional "carve-out". 
In our view the opening words in each of Articles 13.2, 
13.3 and 13.4 provide excellent scope for governments 
to take action that is consistent with their 
constitutions." 
 
¶5. The DFAIT document also points out "the U.S. has 
previously ratified agreements with limitations on 
advertising containing a similar constitutional 
qualification.   A constitutional qualification ("with 
due regard to its constitutional provisions") was used 
in Article 10 of the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic 
Substances, in the context of an obligation to prohibit 
advertising of psychotropic substances to the public. 
The UN commentary on this provision suggests that 
Article 10(2) was drafted in order to require States to 
prohibit the advertisement of these substances to the 
extent that they are allowed to do so by their 
Constitutions.  No reservations or declarations have 
been made regarding this clause, suggesting that the 
qualifier has been sufficient to address the concerns 
of States Parties (including the United States), which 
include constitutional protections of the right to 
freedom of expression." 
 
-------------- 
Warning Labels 
-------------- 
 
¶6. With respect to Warning Labels, the DFAIT document 
states: "With respect to Article 11.1, we would note 
that the United States has ratified other treaties that 
have required legislative changes." 
 
---------------------------- 
Distribution of Free Samples 
---------------------------- 
 
¶7. The DFAIT document declares that: "Article 16.2 is 
not mandatory, since it provides the flexibility to 
simply "promote" the prohibition of the distribution of 
free tobacco products to the public and minors." 
 
------------------- 
Canada's Conclusion 
------------------- 
 
¶8. The DFAIT document further states, "Based on these 
considerations, our view is that the text of the 
Convention should have enough flexibility to meet the 
needs of the U.S. Government." 
 
¶9. The DFAIT document notes ".a number of governments 
negotiating in Geneva, particularly representing 
developing countries, were concerned that if 
reservations were permitted in the Convention, their 
governments would come under intense pressure from 
tobacco companies to enter a large number of 
reservations and undermine the treaty.  That is why 
many governments resisted so strongly provisions that 
would allow for reservations.  We expect that such 
concerns would remain, and that any effort to reopen 
the treaty text at the World Health Assembly could be 
quite divisive and problematic." 
 
¶10.  The DFAIT document concludes that the GoC ".would 
strongly encourage the U.S. government to re-examine 
the flexibility that exists in the current text and 
make the best use possible of this flexibility.  We 
(Canada) would encourage the U.S. government not to 
reopen the text at the World Health Assembly." 
 
¶11. Comment and Action request: The points contained in 
the DFAIT document follow closely similar arguments 
made by the Canadian Cancer Society in its recent 
letter to Ambassador Cellucci.  While we hold out 
little hope of changing the GoC's position prior to the 
World Health Assembly (WHA) next week, we would 
appreciate cleared points that we can use in responding 
to DFAIT and to press inquiries which we expect as news 
of our position on the FCTC begins to come out of 
Geneva. 
 
Cellucci